"Strategic voting" about the sickest thing I've heard of.
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
You assume that our system is perfect and that if 75% of the voters cast a ballot against Harper he won't win. That however isn't true. Not every riding has an equal number of voters so it is quite feasible that The Libs can win 1 seat with 75,000 votes in GTA but those same 75,000 votes get Harper 3 seats in rural Alberta. It is also possible that you get a riding where Harper has 35% of the vote and both the Libs and NDP get 32.5% each giving Harper the seat. These are reasons I keep saying our system is flawed and broken. The only evidence you should need is that the CPC were able to form a majority govt with 38% of the vote in the last election. If the 75% vote against him this time but split the votes fairly evenly it is easily possible for a CPC minority govt and if you siphon off some of that 75% to the greens and Libertarians and independents it is entirely possible to see a Conservative majority with only 25% of the popular vote.I would think a fairly clever person like yourself would have figured it out by now. Apparently the reason why a lot of people are doing this is to get rid of Mr. Harper. To me going by what I hear, Mr. Harper is objectionable to about 75% of the population or at least 75% of those who are stating an opinion. So that being the case if people vote for who they want Mr. Harper will be gone. So that tells me one of two things.............1. they are not all being truthful about their opinion of Mr. Harper or 2. they are voting "strategically" for other reasons than getting rid of Harper. Now there is one more problem, to vote strategically you have to know who is voting how and where. How do they know who is voting how and where? THEY DON'T. At best they know SOME of what people questioned have told the pollsters. You got it now, Cord?
Perhaps so.
Canadians periodically fire their governments, though and that appears to be what is happening tonight.
I am no fan of the Trudeau name. It looks to me that Canadians have had enough, though.
It's a sad day for sure, Dixie.............I liked Harper and I trusted Harper and personally he served my family well. Now other minds have spoken, gotta move on. Just hope Jr. doesn't dismantle the good things Harper did. Got to give the young blood a chance!
My issue with Harper was on the civil liberties front, the niqab being just one example, Bill C-51, etc.
Had he done a better job on the civil liberties front, he might have one another majority.
Had he done a better job on the civil liberties front, he might have one another majority.
Democracy is not a real thing that exists. You are right, the parties are essentially the same.
Why do some people go out of their way to look like real A$$holes? Especially when no one was talking to them!
Methinks that was a pretty old picture you got a hold of there, Cliffy!
Methinks that was a pretty old picture you got a hold of there, Cliffy!
I didn't make it but whoever did was on the ball to pull that out of their butt on such short notice.Methinks that was a pretty old picture you got a hold of there, Cliffy!
And they would be right. Where a person would go wrong if if they think they are not.
Tonight and tomorrow is great we got rid of him. Now my candidate didn't win
but the next best did and for that I am grateful. We got rid of the worst government
in living memory and in a decisive manner too. I will bet Harper is ticked losing to
a Trudeau can't help it feels good
but the next best did and for that I am grateful. We got rid of the worst government
in living memory and in a decisive manner too. I will bet Harper is ticked losing to
a Trudeau can't help it feels good
I agree it was probably time for him to go as he was getting to be "yesterday's man" and a change is as good as a rest they say, but I think he did a stellar job for 9 years and certainly never did me or my family any harm. He was a take charge kind of guy. Nothing wrong with that!
To be honest, I think you're expecting Harper to be a human being.
He probably doesn't really give two ****s about the Trudeau legacy.
I had no problem with Bill C-51, I don't like terrorists!
You've never had the CBSA charge you with something on mere suspicion, have you.
I know someone who had. They had almost gotten her removed from Canada with no proof, only suspicion and probably racial profiling.
They never offered her a lawyer and put her in detention and cut her off from outside contact, but she got a lawyer anyway. That's why she never got removed and got a hearing instead.
The IRB ruled in her favour. On what grounds? Not because she had overwhelming evidence in her favour, but rather because the CBSA's statements were shamefully incompetent!
They wanted her removed based on a violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for working in Canada without authorization. The 'proof?' She happened to be visiting someone else who allegedly was working illegally in Canada (though we can't be sure of that either given the CBSA's 'evidence' collection methods), so arrested anyone in the house who was not authorized to work in Canada. It cost me a fair bit on a lawyer, and for what?
But the worst part is this: they were initially investigating possible human trafficking (or so the police statement claimed) yet collected no hidden audio or video recording, witness statement, DNA, fingerprints, nothing. All they did while investigating something as serious as human trafficking (or so they claimed) was to walk in, glance around, check passports, and arrest anyone not authorized to work in Canada for doing just that for removal.
Her lawyer intended to point out that had she been a human trafficker, the CBSA would have done her a favour by helping escape criminal prosecution by removing her from Canada for a year for just working in Canada. She never got a chance to point that incompetence out though because the judge had ruled in her favour by the second hearing day. He'd already heard enough incompetence by then
The IRB judge ruled that the CBSA had collected no evidence, asked irrelevant questions and recorded answers that were later proved to be false. For example, the CBSA interviewer asked her who she was staying with in Canada, my family name, where she resided in Canada, if she could describe the neighbourhood where she resided, the home in which she resided, and local tourist spots, and recorded that she could do none of these. Yet at the bond hearing, she could do all of these!
The judge had also pointed out that not only had the CBSA collected Bo evidence, but even actively resisted it. For example, he lawyer pushed the CBSA's hearings officer to bring in a few witnesses and the CBSA hearings officer refused, telling her to go through the Access to Information Act to get their statements! If she were guilty and the CBSA was right, what did it have to hide?
In short, the CBSA arrested her on mere presumption of guilt by association, collected no evidence, detained her for removal from Canada on a baseless charge, tried to block her accessentially to a lawyer, asked irrelevant questions, recorded false answers in very broken English, and obstructed the presentation of witness statements as if it had something to hide. As a matter of fact, she believes that they did collect witness statements in her favour and so suppressed it, though she can't prove it but it does make sense.
Oh yes, and it had also crossed out the names of the police officers. Were they ashamed of their statements?
And it doesn't end there! After the IRB ruling in her favour, the CBSA illegally withheld her passport for a week until it received a warning letter from her lawyer of legal consequences for any CBSA officer who should continue to refuse to return her passport the next day. They did return it the next day, but did it really require a warning letter of the criminality of the CBSA's action for it to happen?
Now, in spite of this show if complete incompetence on the part of the CBSA, the CBSA wants to appeal the IRB decision on the grounds that it believes that mere association with someone suspected of working in Canada without authorization should suffice as proof that that person is working in Canada too, that an officer's mère statement should be all the proof needed to remove simeone, and that a record of irrelevant questions and falsely recorded answers in broken English should not discredit the officer's trustworthiness!
Oh, and there is more! The reason they illegally withheld the passport after the IRB decision was that hey feared she would leave the country and not return for the hearing. I remember pointing out the complete insanity of the CBSA officer's statement of fearing that she might leave Canada and not return Canada for a hearing to remove her from Canada back to where she had come from for the hearing!
Worse yet, she's here as a mere tourist! Just think how many thousands of taxpayer dollars the CBSA could have saved had it done its job and collected the evidence that would have proved her innocence. Not only did the CBSA waste thousands of dollars in legal fees (and more to come because the CBSA decided to appeal the decision), but it looks ridiculously incompetent. Think about it. They were investigating something as serious as human trafficking (or so their statement claimed) and they collected not one iota of proof during such a serious investigation? Not even a hidden video or audio recording? Nothing?
Now that is not Bill C-51 but rather the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, which is just as ineptly written.
I have to wonder, how many innocents and human traffickers have been removed from Canada and not allowed to return to Canada for a year.
Tough on crime my azz.
